After I shared the article about Giving Away Inheritance recently, (recounting the decision by a young millionaire to give away her inheritance to a large number of NGOs, as decided by a collaborative group.)
The idea clearly struck a chord – or a nerve – with many people: I received a surprising number of responses, which I posted in the Collaborative Magazine.
In case you didn’t yet see the postings, here’s a brief summary of responses:
- Some people were excited and intrigued about the idea, even while recognizing that it was, at this point, idealistic.
Other people’s responses described why they felt this would not work, sometimes expressing a cynical futility:
- There is no point in doing this, because NGO’s/ charity organizations are corrupt.
- Charities are just another way for people to get rich.
- People give money away just for the tax break.
- People shouldn’t be permitted to get that rich in the first place.
I would like to offer some counter-responses:
First of all, let’s affirm that we are all on the same side, wishing for a total and global solution to fill the gap between the super-rich and super-poor.
A total solution however, cannot happen immediately; we have to settle with what we can do slowly, given the laws and politics favoring the rich today.
- Regarding charity organizations swindling or being corrupt – we have to admit that low character humans are often inclined towards corruption in all levels, but not everybody is corrupt. And so, yes, there are many organizations which are corrupt. But not all! Others are less corrupt, and some are not corrupt at all. To lump all charity organizations together as being corrupt is unfair to the many people who run organizations with high integrity and they work hard in substandard conditions and they are often under-funded.
- Is it better not to give at all, because of some corrupt organizations? But what other possibilities do we have at this point? Suggesting that the money is better left untouched, remaining in the hands of the rich even if they wish to bequeath it, is a puzzling sort of solution. I firmly believe that inaction is not an option, and we cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed in such a way, hiding behind such justifications.
- Regarding the rich giving their inheritance away only for the tax breaks, two things can be said:
- Giving inheritance away is different from giving part of your income to charities – the former is not necessarily for a tax-break; it is a philanthropic gesture. Yes, the latter can be for a tax-break – but isn’t that still a good thing? Isn’t it better than not giving at all?
-
- Giving to charity organization is one idea, and this is a start. But other ideas can also be propagated: it can be given to poor families directly perhaps in a form of scholarship for the poor students, to substandard hospitals, schools and other projects in the developing countries. Or, the benefactor can create a foundation whose wealth can be managed by a board who are the trustees of the benefactor and the family.
- We are looking into the future of humanity and we are eyeing the change of laws at all levels so that the millionaires and billionaires would not become such in the first place, and then we have to beg them for handouts. But until then, we cannot just call the rich immoral and complain about them, even when they are willing to give away some of what they have, not can we call their gestures impure.
Let’s continue this conversation, both the arguments and counter-arguments, seeking creative solutions, rather than throwing up our hands in despair. A global fix to inequality will arise only through dynamic conversations and actions. There is no perfect and instant solution.
If some people volunteer to give their own inheritance to the world, we can cheer for them, until the laws of inheritance change in favor of creating a balanced world.
Warm regards,
Mostafa